Zoom tele

justinspeaks · Jan 27, 2007

im looking at both the sigma 50-500 and canon 100-400. how do you think the sigma holds up to the canon? quality, build, speed, etc... I already know the canon is a better piece of glass so i'm strictly just asking if the sigma is close to it's performance or not.

sothoth · Jan 27, 2007

They're different enough in zoom range that it's tough to do a direct comparison. I like Sigma's glass very much, but I am skeptical that any lens can do 50-500 and have decent quality at the high and low range. I never get zooms with that much of a range for that reason. So... frankly I'd suggest neither unless you REALLY need all that in one lens.

justinspeaks · Jan 28, 2007

so do you think it would be smarter to spend a few hundred more and get a 70-200 f/4 and a 400 f/5.6. the main reason i want the 400 is for surf photography but i dont want to be stuck just at 400 thats why i was considering the 100-400.

sothoth · Jan 28, 2007

How far away are you from the action when you're shooting surfing? Are you on the cliffs trying to shoot guys surfing maverics? If so, you might need a 1200mm and even that might not cut it.

I have never needed something above 300mm and frankly the price tags on those lenses scare the S&*t out of me. Hopefully a better tele expert can chime in on that.

In general, though, I'd look for a tighter range of tele lens and get a separate lens for non-surfing shooting, if you have the clams to get both. That's assuming you want the flexibility to shoot everyday stuff with the same camera, which is why I say maybe both would be good.

SaSi · Jan 28, 2007

Been there, done that, with a Sigma 80-400.

I knew I needed the reach, but could/would not afford to pay more.

Now that I failed (none of the two lenses you suggest or the one I bought are action lenses) I have a nice big lens sitting, suitable for wildlife, nature and the zoo.

I would get the 70-200/2.8 (nonIS) to start with. Also, get the Canon 1.4x extender. Now way you can go wrong with these two.

Then, if you find 200/280 is not enough, consider a 300/4

These lenses are crisp enough that the TC won't hurt them.

Don Simon · Jan 28, 2007

Considering the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/4 IS both cost the same, I would definitely go for the 2.8, because you want to freeze the action. The f/4 might be good for that sometimes but as SaSi said you may well want a teleconverter, which is going to make either lens a bit slower, plus presumably you won't always be shooting on bright sunny days, therefore I'd always want the faster lens.

darich · Jan 28, 2007

I can vouch for the quality of the 70-200 f2.8. Stunning lens and great for freezing action. great for low light.

IS may be a consideration especially if you add a teleconverter on to it. That adds cost but may be worth it.

Remember that you can always increase the ISO to freeze the action and depending on the camera you have, the noise may be almost non existant up to around ISO1600. It is on mine anyway.

usayit · Jan 28, 2007

70-200 f2.8 and its cousin with IS are supurb quality albeit a bit heavy and expensive.

Before you go the teleconverter/extender route, be sure you understand the advantages and disadvantages of using the EF 1.4 teleconverter.

If you are considering the 70-200mm f2.8 IS with a 1.4x canon extender, you are closing up on $2k. Long focal length, fast apertures for sports photography is extremely expensive. My first choice would be the 100-400mm Canon. Considering the price, I'd still consider the Sigma. Perhaps rent one to try it out is an option.

sothoth · Jan 28, 2007

Regarding the 70-200 IS f/2.8: I don't usually buy into the "canon and nikon lenses are better" but in this case, I don't see a very comparable lens from any other manufacturer.

If usayit can't afford that lens (it's >$1000 on amazon) what are reasonable alternatives? I'm asking because I'll been needing to head down this path soon. Sigma has a 70-200 (no IS) but it's only $200ish, and although it's reviewed well, I'm guessing that by comparison it's nowhere near the Canon.

Any others on the market worth looking at?

Don Simon · Jan 28, 2007

sothoth said:
Regarding the 70-200 IS f/2.8: I don't usually buy into the "canon and nikon lenses are better" but in this case, I don't see a very comparable lens from any other manufacturer.

I see a 70-200mm f/2.8 from one camera & lens manufacturer and a 80-200mm f/2.8 from another. Then of course there are primes too, but those are the most directly 'comparable'. They are very comparable with a 70-200mm f/2.8, however they are not very comparable with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS or VR lens because only Canon and Nikon offer in-lens stabilisation. If you don't want IS or VR there are still optically comparable lenses from other optical companies, including the so-called "third party" ones.

sothoth said:
If usayit can't afford that lens (it's >$1000 on amazon) what are reasonable alternatives? I'm asking because I'll been needing to head down this path soon. Sigma has a 70-200 (no IS) but it's only $200ish, and although it's reviewed well, I'm guessing that by comparison it's nowhere near the Canon.

Are you sure the Sigma is around $200? The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is significantly more expensive than that - and performs accordingly. Just like the equivalent Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Minolta it is a serious lens.
I am unaware of an equivalent Tamron or Tokina, but they may exist.

usayit · Jan 28, 2007

Tokina makes a 80-400mm zoom lens as well. No personal experience but the one Tokina I do have (the plastic wonder) performs well for the $150 I paid for it.

Don Simon · Jan 28, 2007

Yeah I was being fairly narrow trying to find lenses of directly comparable focal lengths and speed to a 70-200 f/2.8. If you want something not so fast and nowhere near as expensive there are loads of options, and I would have no trouble at all recommending a Tokina. Tamron and Sigma make some very good glass too but I always felt Tokina lenses tended to have a better 'feel'.

sothoth · Jan 28, 2007

ZaphodB said:
Are you sure the Sigma is around $200? The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is significantly more expensive than that

Yeah, you're right. I saw the f/4-5.6 for $200 but got it mixed up with the f/2.8... obviously those are very different lenses.

I suspect that the 2.8 is quite comparable to the Canon.

Thanks!